YEC Tactics

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:03 pm

The argument proposed is that many well known Young Earth Creationists employ questionable tactics to argue their point of view.

Excubis · Post by **Excubis** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:49 am

[Replying to post 119 by Enoch2021]

Now this incorrect interpretation of phenomena as it pertains to the scientific method does not mean observing only the actual mechanism of the phenomena but it's effects(change that occurred) and then attempt to reproduce these effects by trial and error to ascertain what type mechanism of phenomena caused these effects.

No marine life would not be buried first, run off does not work this way at all. Land animals are buried first. When flooding occurs loose earth in form of mud cover the land and smaller organism such as plant life are buried first, then larger organism such as animals, then as water recedes aquatic life would be on top.

Now I would suggest reading Strata Mechanics, although pillars are anomalous they are not in abundance and as creationist like to assume that they are remnants of trees which in turn show how rapidly strata was created. Here is what is wrong with this analysis:

1) If strata was created in a short time such as time line of Noah's flood heavier elements would only be at lowest strata and lighter elements above, this is not the case. Strata varies in weight, although deposits by flooding in gullies ect.. have this character the next flood or run off place a layer heavy elements on top of lighter ones left from previous floods.

2) Strata as formed in laboratories has shown conclusively that unless separated by adequate amount of time heavier elements always progress down. There is no evidence of this in the multiple layers of stratification.

Now this comes from in my own words from Strata Mechanics. I would also suggest looking at cenotes of south america although not yet pillars they will be one day if the environment changes. There are already of cenotes filling with run off due to deforestation. Also if they were tree's why do they follow same lines of stratification. I lived in southern sask. canada by a deposit of fossilized trees(petrified wood) and guess what no strata's

http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidef ... /02369.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidef ... /02370.jpg
or for many pic in yellowstone
http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidef ... y/Page.htm

Many pics of petrified wood, these pillars could not be trees, they would of petrified. Fossils keep there structure always and do not have character like that of strata.

Now the site you posted is ambiguous and does not provide resources for me to check. I would have to take this statement from there "Criticisms of radiometric dating have been growing over recent years and following the chronology shown by our experiments I have looked at the basic premises upon which such dating is based.' well were are references to this ascertain of a growing doubt? I searched can't find one only a clear acceptance of this dating procedure.

As for my bible study I am using NIV, but have read in the past many versions. I find NIV a more pleasant translation. Why do I make the assumption of an inability to question your own beliefs, you have stated your opinions as fact, use words such as never and impossible. Well if it was impossible for cell formation to spontaneously occur no life would be present at all. Your explanation is God mine is an unknown. I say not yet know or understood not words of immutability.

As far as don't blame the recipe for a burnt cake. Well I was a cook/baker how I helped pay my way through school and will say one thing if the recipe is crap you blame the author of the recipe, not just the cook following the recipe.

Now as for your continued use of Software and Code for the certainty of a I.D. I have been reading much about this topic. First off the Entropy of computer code is not the same as the genetic code, they are not the same, the complexity of the genetic code is far higher and it is processing power, not code that has sped up the sequencing of genomes. Also code refers to a sequence of chemical markers with in the genome, the code is a chemical one not digital like computer code. Yes we can convert the genetic information into a digital medium to interpret date. This is just like as using E=MC2 to get Nuclear Fission number represent amount in same fashion so we can interpret information and use this knowledge.

I would suggest watching the Great Debate-Origins of the Future. Very interesting stuff. You cannot claim fallacy without providing proof of this fallacy, not an opinion but actual testable facts and referenced material so a person can adequately check these so called fallacies. I will check, always do yet there is a need for reference not an opinionated article.

Excubis · Post by **Excubis** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:02 am

[Replying to post 124 by Enoch2021]

No Surtsey reached surface in 1963 and finished erupting in 1967 and I believe was 2.?km squared at peak but has since diminished greatly because of wave erosion. Now although island can pop up fairly quickly they do not have strata's only by erosion do strata's occur.

Okay for one, why is there so much life in so little time, well introduction of life by humans. When at one time it would of taken lang amount of time for an abundance of life to occur on a new island today there is no longer geographical isolation. Humans through travel by boat especially carry seeds, spores ect.. to these new lands. This is evident in the Hawaiian Islands, the invasive not native plants are found first on new land. Here this is pdf talks about invasive plants and animals http://www.issg.org/database/reference/ ... pecies.pdf

Enoch2021 · Post by **Enoch2021** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:00 pm

Danmark wrote:
Enoch2021 wrote:
Well alrighty then...

Yard!!

Information---"the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

Information is CREATED then Transmitted to a Receiver for the purposes of instruction/guiding for a specific purpose and intent.
Most critically, the "Convention" has to be PRE-ARRANGED between the Transmitter and Receiver for it to be UNDERSTOOD. Without UNDERSTANDING...There is NO INFORMATION, it's a Cacophony of NOISE.

DNA displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes....

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic CODE booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

Even though DNA is analogous to "Computer" Software (We're not Computers), there is "SOFTWARE" in other genre's besides computers. Allow me to explain....

See this......C A T ? This is a "CODE". For what? ......

The Letters C A T aren't spelled out on it's fur. C A T is the "CODE" name we gave it. The meaning is the agreed upon convention "SOFTWARE"; It's Semiotic.
Cute cat.
Sorry. If you are going to start with explaining the spelling of CAT and rehash your misrepresentation of Venter, I'm not interested in rehashing your previous refuted efforts. C'mon. Send a new pitch with something on it. I'm not going to swing unless they come somewhere near the plate. I don't expect you to get it in the strike zone, but at least don't bounce it a couple times between the mound and the plate.

Cute cat.

I thought so

If you are going to start with explaining the spelling of CAT and rehash your misrepresentation of Venter

Baseless "erroneous" Assertion (Fallacy). It's Prima Facie; and, mere Tertiary support for my case.

I'm not interested in rehashing your previous refuted efforts

You haven't refuted this in any: way, shape, or form....neither has anyone else on this or any other forum. The closest anyone has gotten is: "DNA is not CODE"....Implosion.

And to be consistent with your Metaphor... I was the one that was Batting, and I went Yard!!

You have No Argument and No "coherent" Position.

In order to refute...you need to show: Stupid Atoms/Molecules Creating Algorithmic CODING and De-CODING Schemes. It's just that simple.

regards

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:50 pm

What are you talking about? I told you I saw the CAT. I even admitted it was cute. What more do you want? Now come on give us another brilliancy prize from the creation blogs. You've already done the Venter thing. We know he does not believe in YEC or creationism. Try some new silliness. No more cats tho'. They should only be dragged in by their mothers.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:54 pm

Enoch2021 wrote: In order to refute...you need to show: Stupid Atoms/Molecules Creating Algorithmic CODING and De-CODING Schemes. It's just that simple.

It IS that simple. For the third time, I point out the existence of evolutionary algorithms.

Enoch2021 · Post by **Enoch2021** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Excubis wrote: [Replying to post 119 by Enoch2021]

Now this incorrect interpretation of phenomena as it pertains to the scientific method does not mean observing only the actual mechanism of the phenomena but it's effects(change that occurred) and then attempt to reproduce these effects by trial and error to ascertain what type mechanism of phenomena caused these effects.

No marine life would not be buried first, run off does not work this way at all. Land animals are buried first. When flooding occurs loose earth in form of mud cover the land and smaller organism such as plant life are buried first, then larger organism such as animals, then as water recedes aquatic life would be on top.

Now I would suggest reading Strata Mechanics, although pillars are anomalous they are not in abundance and as creationist like to assume that they are remnants of trees which in turn show how rapidly strata was created. Here is what is wrong with this analysis:

1) If strata was created in a short time such as time line of Noah's flood heavier elements would only be at lowest strata and lighter elements above, this is not the case. Strata varies in weight, although deposits by flooding in gullies ect.. have this character the next flood or run off place a layer heavy elements on top of lighter ones left from previous floods.

2) Strata as formed in laboratories has shown conclusively that unless separated by adequate amount of time heavier elements always progress down. There is no evidence of this in the multiple layers of stratification.

Now this comes from in my own words from Strata Mechanics. I would also suggest looking at cenotes of south america although not yet pillars they will be one day if the environment changes. There are already of cenotes filling with run off due to deforestation. Also if they were tree's why do they follow same lines of stratification. I lived in southern sask. canada by a deposit of fossilized trees(petrified wood) and guess what no strata's

http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidef ... /02369.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidef ... /02370.jpg
or for many pic in yellowstone
http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidef ... y/Page.htm

Many pics of petrified wood, these pillars could not be trees, they would of petrified. Fossils keep there structure always and do not have character like that of strata.

Now the site you posted is ambiguous and does not provide resources for me to check. I would have to take this statement from there "Criticisms of radiometric dating have been growing over recent years and following the chronology shown by our experiments I have looked at the basic premises upon which such dating is based.' well were are references to this ascertain of a growing doubt? I searched can't find one only a clear acceptance of this dating procedure.

As for my bible study I am using NIV, but have read in the past many versions. I find NIV a more pleasant translation. Why do I make the assumption of an inability to question your own beliefs, you have stated your opinions as fact, use words such as never and impossible. Well if it was impossible for cell formation to spontaneously occur no life would be present at all. Your explanation is God mine is an unknown. I say not yet know or understood not words of immutability.

As far as don't blame the recipe for a burnt cake. Well I was a cook/baker how I helped pay my way through school and will say one thing if the recipe is crap you blame the author of the recipe, not just the cook following the recipe.

Now as for your continued use of Software and Code for the certainty of a I.D. I have been reading much about this topic. First off the Entropy of computer code is not the same as the genetic code, they are not the same, the complexity of the genetic code is far higher and it is processing power, not code that has sped up the sequencing of genomes. Also code refers to a sequence of chemical markers with in the genome, the code is a chemical one not digital like computer code. Yes we can convert the genetic information into a digital medium to interpret date. This is just like as using E=MC2 to get Nuclear Fission number represent amount in same fashion so we can interpret information and use this knowledge.

I would suggest watching the Great Debate-Origins of the Future. Very interesting stuff. You cannot claim fallacy without providing proof of this fallacy, not an opinion but actual testable facts and referenced material so a person can adequately check these so called fallacies. I will check, always do yet there is a need for reference not an opinionated article.

Now this incorrect interpretation of phenomena as it pertains to the scientific method does not mean observing only the actual mechanism of the phenomena but it's effects(change that occurred) and then attempt to reproduce these effects by trial and error to ascertain what type mechanism of phenomena caused these effects.

Factually Incorrect and refuted by simple definition....

A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world.
[url]http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis[/url]

"Effects" are "Nouns" Observing Phenomena is "Verb" Tense....action.

You can't VALIDATE Past Unobserved Unrepeated Events...it's Non-Sequitur without a Time Machine.

Now the site you posted is ambiguous and does not provide resources for me to check. I would have to take this statement from there "Criticisms of radiometric dating have been growing over recent years and following the chronology shown by our experiments

I didn't provide any "websites" for Radiometric Dating specifically. I refuted by simple logic.

I have looked at the basic premises upon which such dating is based.' well were are references to this ascertain of a growing doubt?

This sentence makes no sense.

I searched can't find one only a clear acceptance of this dating procedure.

Again this is "Science" (Empirical) not "Philosophy" (Acceptance). Refute the Argument I laid out i.e., Refute the First Assumption (The Original Parent to Daughter ratio) and the QM proof.

As for my bible study I am using NIV, but have read in the past many versions.

It's Demonstrably Corrupted (as is the Majority of "translations")....sourced by Gnostic Codices (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) and codified by satan worshipers (Westcott and Hort). Use the AKJV.

As far as don't blame the recipe for a burnt cake. Well I was a cook/baker how I helped pay my way through school and will say one thing if the recipe is crap you blame the author of the recipe, not just the cook following the recipe

Strawman. That wasn't my point.

Why do I make the assumption of an inability to question your own beliefs, you have stated your opinions as fact, use words such as never and impossible.

Yes, in regards to "Nature" building Functional Sequence Complexity. How does this relate to your claim concerning Scripture?

Well if it was impossible for cell formation to spontaneously occur no life would be present at all.

So your argument is: "We Have Life"; Therefore, the cell spontaneously formed.

Ahhh, it's IMPOSSIBLE both Physically and Chemically as I have repeatedly demonstrated to you. You can't even show a 30 mer Functional DNA/RNA/Protein form Spontaneously "Naturally", let alone LIFE.
Ergo...your Argument is Fallacious (Non-Sequitur) because your Premise "forming spontaneously" is erroneous. And Scientifically, directly Violates: (1LOT/2LOT, Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity Information et al.
To refute please show that 30 mer above. CITE SOURCE!

Now as for your continued use of Software and Code for the certainty of a I.D. I have been reading much about this topic. First off the Entropy of computer code is not the same as the genetic code, they are not the same, the complexity of the genetic code is far higher....

Thank You for proving my position further. And it's Functional Sequence Complexity.

Also code refers to a sequence of chemical markers with in the genome, the code is a chemical one not digital like computer code.

Yes, of course it's Chemical. The Question is...where's the Software?? Please....

CCU, CCC, CCA, CCG = Proline.
CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, UUA, UUG = Leucine
UAA, UAG, UGA = STOP!

Please show the Physico-Chemical links....?

Additionally, The N-Glycosidic Bonds on the backbone of DNA (and RNA) are Chemically Indeterminate i.e., any base can attach; Ergo...Chemistry has absolutely zero to do with Functional Sequence Complexity just as ink molecules in printed text have absolutely zero to do with the construction, arrangement of the letters, and the message thereof.

This is just like as using E=MC2 to get Nuclear Fission

Say What? This is tantamount to ascribing the laws of motion as the Cause for the Billiard Ball moving across the table.

I would suggest watching the Great Debate-Origins of the Future. You cannot claim fallacy without providing proof of this fallacy, not an opinion but actual testable facts and referenced material so a person can adequately check these so called fallacies.

Ok, and.....? What Fallacy are you (or they) talking about? There are so many proffered by you and cohorts that it's difficult to keep track.

As for "Strata", "Radiometric Dating", "fossils".... and the like, along with the Extrapolations (Conjectures) thereof.... honestly, bores me to tears.

Please "Scientifically" Validate "Billions of Years"....?

regards

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:30 pm

[Replying to post 146 by Enoch2021]

Let's say you completely disprove all of humanities collective scientific endeavors. That still does not prove a YEC model. Proving evolution wrong and proving that we have insufficient means to determine the age of the earth brings us no closer to a Young Earth Model.

All you are disproving is any means to validate your own model. Your argument is that of one favoring solipsism.

Enoch2021 · Post by **Enoch2021** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:37 pm

Danmark wrote: What are you talking about? I told you I saw the CAT. I even admitted it was cute. What more do you want? Now come on give us another brilliancy prize from the creation blogs. You've already done the Venter thing. We know he does not believe in YEC or creationism. Try some new silliness. No more cats tho'. They should only be dragged in by their mothers.

What are you talking about?

Stupid Atoms inability to Create Their Own Software.

I told you I saw the CAT. I even admitted it was cute.

What more do you want?

Well to have a wisp of a prayer for any veracity whatsoever for your position, you must then VALIDATE a mechanism/show how Stupid Atoms can create Software/INFORMATION---the sine qua non of Life.
Isn't this threshold painfully obvious?

Now come on give us another brilliancy prize from the creation blogs.

Implied Genetic Fallacy. And it wasn't from "Creationist Blogs" it's from "Me".

We know he does not believe in YEC or creationism

He doesn't believe in Communism either; so....SO? I wasn't "Polling Him" to ascertain his "Beliefs".

Try some new silliness

Yes, so silly you want to distance yourself from it quick without retort. Always wanting something new; well, this is Tantamount to...

A Defense Attorney exclaiming to the Jury that: the Prosecutor has nothing new; he just keeps repeating the same: Finger Prints on the Murder Weapon, Video Surveillance, His Skin Cells under the finger nails of the victim et al....then claims his client is Innocent because the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything new.

regards

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:55 pm

Enoch2021 wrote:
Yes, so silly you want to distance yourself from it quick without retort. Always wanting something new; well, this is Tantamount to...

A Defense Attorney exclaiming to the Jury that: the Prosecutor has nothing new; he just keeps repeating the same: Finger Prints on the Murder Weapon, Video Surveillance, His Skin Cells under the finger nails of the victim et al....then claims his client is Innocent because the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything new.

Wrong again. To use your analogy, the prosecutor has no evidence to present, so he keeps waving the flag and talking about justice, and never has any finger prints, the murder weapon, or even a dead body. When it comes to making your case for YEC you have no corpus delicti.

That's why you keep going back to old ground you've previously covered and been exposed on. You've previously quoted a creation blog misrepresenting Venter. Venter not only believes in evolution, he believes it's been going on for 3.45 billion years on Earth:

J. CRAIG VENTER: Biological evolution has taken 3.5 or 4 billion years to get us where we are. The adaption of our species to the social environment -- social evolution -- has been much faster. Now that we can read and write the genetic code, put it in digital form and translate it back into synthesized life, it will be possible to speed up biological evolution to the pace of social evolution.

Enoch2021 · Post by **Enoch2021** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:26 pm

Danmark wrote:
Enoch2021 wrote:
Yes, so silly you want to distance yourself from it quick without retort. Always wanting something new; well, this is Tantamount to...

A Defense Attorney exclaiming to the Jury that: the Prosecutor has nothing new; he just keeps repeating the same: Finger Prints on the Murder Weapon, Video Surveillance, His Skin Cells under the finger nails of the victim et al....then claims his client is Innocent because the Prosecutor hasn't revealed anything new.
Wrong again. To use your analogy, the prosecutor has no evidence to present, so he keeps waving the flag and talking about justice, and never has any finger prints, the murder weapon, or even a dead body. When it comes to making your case for YEC you have no corpus delicti.

That's why you keep going back to old ground you've previously covered and been exposed on. You've previously quoted a creation blog misrepresenting Venter. Venter not only believes in evolution, he believes it's been going on for 3.45 billion years on Earth:

J. CRAIG VENTER: Biological evolution has taken 3.5 or 4 billion years to get us where we are. The adaption of our species to the social environment -- social evolution -- has been much faster. Now that we can read and write the genetic code, put it in digital form and translate it back into synthesized life, it will be possible to speed up biological evolution to the pace of social evolution.

Wrong again. To use your analogy, the prosecutor has no evidence to present, so he keeps waving the flag and talking about justice, and never has any finger prints, the murder weapon, or even a dead body. When it comes to making your case for YEC you have no corpus delicti.

So the walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming, "What Ocean?" scenario, eh?

Well here it is (for the 20th Time): YEC Tactics

Please refute the points, Specifically....?

J. CRAIG VENTER: Biological evolution has taken 3.5 or 4 billion years to get us where we are. The adaption of our species to the social environment -- social evolution -- has been much faster. Now that we can read and write the genetic code, put it in digital form and translate it back into synthesized life, it will be possible to speed up biological evolution to the pace of social evolution.

Venter not only believes in evolution, he believes it's been going on for 3.45 billion years on Earth

Ahh, you're having a very difficult time differentiating and discerning between "Beliefs" and "Science" or "Scientific Claims" and "Claims, that Scientists make".

"Science" and "Scientific Claims"--- Method: The Scientific Method (Hypothesis TESTED/Validated).

"Beliefs" and "Claims, that Scientists make"---Method: Imagination/Philosophy.

Once you're able to discern the difference, it lifts the fog.

regards